Member of the Funny Name Club

August 05, 2010

The Herding, Part Two

Over at Ace’s, there’s a commenter who continually tells Ace’s presumably mostly white readership that it’s pointless to go on about the history of race relations in this country and that white Americans should simply join the battle which the Obama Administration and the organized Left are trying to provoke. When I responded with a condensed version of how black American social and political allegiance has been manipulated over the past ten decades, he stated that a people who could be so easily (sic) manipulated must really be inferior.

This man demonstrates the type of limited perspective that I sketched out in Part One and, actually, his type could have furnished me with an additional bullet point; not only is he unable to think strategically, he actually rebukes the notion that such analysis has any value. Moreover, such a person is blind to how his own thinking and emotional state have been shaped and molded by Leftist ideology in a much shorter time span than was so for black Americans.

In this second part, my purpose is to detail another tactical weapon of the Left, the purpose of which has been to instill a set of attitudes in the minds of the American populace; in this case, the mindset is meant for white Americans.

If the Left has been successful at keeping racial grievance in the forefront of black American agenda—in indoctrinating black Americans into believing that retaining racial anger at whites is inherent in being black and essential for black survival--it has also been successful in later years of producing a certain mindset in white Americans. Actually this seems to be two mindsets, but it is really a singular one—a two-headed beast. The first is guilt-fear and the second is unproductive anger.

What is white guilt? It is not a personal sense of remorse over past wrongs. White guilt is literally a vacuum of moral authority in matters of race, equality, and opportunity that comes from the association of mere white skin with America's historical racism. It is the stigmatization of whites and, more importantly, American institutions with the sin of racism. Under this stigma white individuals and American institutions must perpetually prove a negative--that they are not racist--to gain enough authority to function in matters of race, equality, and opportunity. If they fail to prove the negative, they will be seen as racists. Political correctness, diversity policies, and multiculturalism are forms of deference that give whites and institutions a way to prove the negative and win reprieve from the racist stigma.

Institutions especially must be proactive in all this. They must engineer a demonstrable racial innocence to garner enough authority for simple legitimacy in the American democracy. No university today, private or public, could admit students by academic merit alone if that meant no black or brown faces on campus. Such a university would be seen as racist and shunned accordingly. White guilt has made social engineering for black and brown representation a condition of legitimacy.

It’s a “read the whole thing” kind of essay.

The phenomenon of white guilt doesn’t merely mean that many white Americans feel guilty for the actions of pre-CRA America. It also means that all white Americans must pay for the sins of their fathers and pay for a system from which they are perceived to still be the beneficiaries and to still have advantages over all other Americans simply due to being white. Stemming from that premise, all whites are guilty until proven innocent.

Why are some of you so afraid of being called [labeled] 'racist' when you know that you aren't?

Little did I comprehend the near mortal terror in which the white American of goodwill and good-faith lives at being labeled as racist. What I discovered was that white Americans are being systematically made to pay if they step outside the ever-shifting boundaries of Political Correctness. If a given white person does cross one of these boundaries, he/she is “payed-back,”: often by losing employment which is usually accompanied by being driven into bankruptcy. Therefore, avoiding the label of ‘racist’ ( or ‘sexist’ or 'homophobe’) has been a matter of economic survival for white people—especially for heterosexual men.

Here are excerpts from some of the responses to the "Question" post. (The comments have been re-opened there, by the way. Also, keep in mind that the responses were given back in December 2009--before the Tea Party Movement and before the wanton slinging of the racist label had begun in earnest. It seems such a long time ago.)

It isn't fear, it's just a healthy respect for the consequences. If you work for a Fortune 500 company in a right-to-work state, being labeled a racist is going to get you an unpleasant visit to HR, a poor rating, and the beginnings of the process that is going to get you fired. These companies have all instituted mandatory diversity training, and no deviations from the usual company policy of denigrating white men and elevating blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, and GLBTs will be tolerated.

The 'Racist' epithet and label are being used as a wedge to keep the races at one another's throat, in my opinion, because harmony threatens the occupations of so many people. And divisiveness is profitable. So those of us who are clearly not racist will not speak up as a general rule because the "race card" trumps all others, in the courts and in the court of public opinion.

The Left, including their politicians, much of the news and entertainment industries, and much of academia and the public schools have been in the process for decades of sedating, dumbing down, and propagandizing the American people.

I lived and worked in Mountain View, San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto for thirty-plus years. I never bought into the "white guilt" thing, and made no secret of my non buy-in, and it cost me at least one substantial rise in income…So yes, being labeled "racist" can cost you.

[A]busive race-mongers and their disingenuous ideals must be challenged by and removed by their racial/intellectual peers. Why? Because they are in control of the conversation. As long as their peers allow them to remain unchallenged in their control and limning of the innocent, I don't think it will go away[…]Just as fear breeds resentment, unchallenged abuses breed ever-bolder tyranny.

One person described the labeling process in the following manner: once the white person has been tarnished with the racism label, all the others turn away from him rather than come to his aid—even if they believe he is innocent. (That reminds me of a book; several, in fact.) The reason? Such aid rendered will result in the defender being tarnished as well. This makes sense because of the Leftist premise, again: whites are always guilty of racism or are the beneficiaries of it. Who wouldn’t be afraid knowing the probable outcome?

(When I suggested that whites en masse refuse to play the racist game, one rocket scientistimagined that I was saying that, because white Americans often wouldn’t fight back when accused of racism, the persecution was their own fault. That sort of faulty reasoning is a subset of the white guilt-fear-anger axis. It’s also Rapist “Logic”: “she was asking for it and it was her fault that she was raped because she didn’t fight back.”)

Individual guilt can be a positive thing: a motivator to get clean and make restitution to the wronged party. (And this Christian asserts that the identity of the wronged party is always the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel [nee Jacob].) However, when group guilt is the matter at hand, there exists no actual defendant or plaintiff in reality. Under such a fantasy, the "plaintiff" can never be made whole and, obviously, the "defendant" can never be made to pay enough. And that brings us to...

White Anger

Dr.Steele again:

People often deny [a better verb, I think: disavow] white guilt by pointing to its irrationality--"I never owned a slave," "My family got here eighty years after slavery was over." But of course almost nothing having to do with race is rational. That whites are now stigmatized by their race is not poetic justice; it is simply another echo of racism's power to contaminate by mere association.

Persons who use this cogent logic are exactly right; however, they forget about the Leftist premise regarding beneficiaries—that even if, say, a Russian immigrant arrived in 1995, he/she still gets a perceived advantage over the black American, simply by being white.

Where the anger comes in should be obvious to anyone who has been on the receiving end of wrath for acts they have not personally committed, but it goes deeper than that. The idea of group or generational guilt stems from the biblical notion that the “sins of the father are visited upon the son.” However, when the Left builds upon this notion, they are forgetting who the visitor—the inflictor—is. (Hint: it’s someone in whom much of the Left does not believe.) This should lead us to the conclusion that group or generational guilt is something that the political Left doesn’t believe in either. Sowing the need for it and reaping the resultant white guilt-fear-anger is just a tactic…toward the goal.

The white person who feels unproductive anger at blacks as a group is in just as manipulated as the black person who feels this way toward all whites whether either is justified or not. Why? Because blanket anger toward group for things which an individual of any group cannot change—such as skin color or race--leads to the Vicious Circle of un-washable guilt and anger that I've already described and it gets the Left what it wants—the goal.

Properly targeted, productive anger, however, is where moral and valuable solutions lie--not to mention absolution.

A Certain Justifiable Anger and How the Left Uses It

That Leftist politicians and shapers of the mainstream media content are labeling the Tea Party Movement as racist is a fortuitous example (for them) of how to use the indoctrination which they have implemented. Oh, they know that the Tea party movement isn’t actually racist in its foundation, principles or goals. They do, however, know this: in the mind of the black on-looker who sees the Movement’s mostly white makeup and who does not recognize that he/she has been indoctrinated with an incomplete view of American history or that his anger/vengeance is being purposely inflamed, all the Leftist conditioning will spring up at the first flinging of the epithet ‘racist.’

As a result, whites who know that their opposition to the policies of the Obama Administration and the Democrat-controlled Legislative Branch of government is totally based on principle are even further angered. The Left uses this conditioning and the anger of being unjustly accused to paint the Movement as anti-black, shaping it in their own image as the fruit of the Racial Discord tree which they have planted and so diligently have fed and watered.

Conclusion

White and all other Americans—some who are keen observers of the history of Leftism, of Statism and who understand how and why this country was founded; others who merely want to provide for their families and live as free as possible--are easily able to visualize the path on which this country has its footing and are justifiably angry with those in our government who are purposely leading the United States of America toward tyranny. This is not “white” anger; this is American anger.

The tactics educated into both sets of the American populace are designed to do two things: 1) dis-empower both to the point of believing that their fellow citizens are their enemies, and 2) inflame negative and violent emotions to the point at which actual violence will take place. Fear, anger, and--the progenitor of the two—covetousness; the Left’s long-stoked Race War cannot begin without these. (I am purposely leaving out the equation of Americans of Hispanic descent and the illegal alien question; things to address in Part Three. ) [2014 note: I changed my mind about Part Three's subject matter, but, considering what has happened in 2014, a Part Four is needed.]

The Left sows and inflames Racial Discord in order to eventually style itself and its chosen representatives as the solution to the Discord it continues to sow. And the “solving” of that problem brings us back to my conclusion, stated in Part One, the Fundamental Transformation.

Power is the Left’s goal; power over all areas of each individual American life, regard of race creed or color of the particular American. The good news: the Left has over-played the Race Card with President Obama’s face on the suit. And it has stirred up righteous anger of we who recognize that Leftist Ideologues have long been actively targeting the goal of permanently impeding the Pursuit of Happiness and depriving all Americans of Liberty, Property and, ultimately, Life.

Sorry that mumble jumble in the screen name above was me, Blazer. Signed in to Yahoo, not sure whats going on. At any rate baldi keep us informed about the book when you finish it, looking forward to buying it.

As a means of of experimental verification for your social thesis regarding black Americans, you can trace a very similar pattern of manipulation through the recent disputes over immigration. It's my opinion (based not only on that issue, but also on what I've personally witnessed regarding ethnic clubs on college campuses) that the Left has been trying to do to hispanics what it has already done to blacks with the ultimate goal of creating another trained and dependent voting bloc anchored in racial resentment.

..and it's disgusting to see many on the establishment Right ignorantly playing along on account of demographic projections and voter rolls.

If one is successful personally combating the programming, the curtain of guilt pulls back and reveals the ability to think of race relations on a very different level. Like Neo first penetrating the membrane I see now that my "team" is not white and the other "team" is not black. My team (populated more and more by blacks) is resisting the programming and the other is perpetuating it.

You've hit the nail on the head as far as the Left fomenting crisis to implement its program. In fact, in "Liberal Fascism" Jonah Golberg cites the early Progressives of the 1900s fondness for war as a way of allowing their program to be implemented more rapidly than in peacetime. You can hear the echo of that desire for chaos in Rahm Emmanuel's saying that you should never waste a crisis.

I think that a lot has changed since then. At least on the internet, maybe not so much in the workplace (for obvious reasons), I see a whole lot of push back against that fear of being called racist. There is no avoiding it anymore, so trying to avoid it is particularly useless.